Ethics

The Environmental Protection Agency If you think about the EPA protecting business and environment at the same time it’s very difficult or virtually impossible. Ethically if the EPA does not enforce the laws of the United States and violation occur, the rights of the people and animals are violated. They would be harmed by the water being mixed with chemicals and toxic wastes. Everyone is entitled to breathe clean air and eat food that is not contaminated with chemicals. If the EPA enforces the environmental laws then the rights of factory are violated. A business right is to product goods at a low cost. So if a business violated the EPA laws they are infringes on the rights of other innocent people and animals. From the deontological perspective it’s the duty of the business to follow environmental laws. If this was the case we would not need an Environmental Proctention Agency. (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], n.d., p. 1) What is Mission Statement of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), EPA’s mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment, - air, water and land upon which life depends. The EPA provides leadership and guidance in the countries environmental science, research, educational and assessment efforts. The EPA works closely with other federal and local agencies to develop and enforce environmental laws. EPA is responsible for researching and setting national standards for variety of environmental programs and delegates to states for issuing permits and monitoring and enforcing laws. Where national standards are not met, EPA can issues issue sanctions and take other steps to assist the states to reach the desired levels of environmental quality. What I see is the EPA have good intentions but when you get people involved in enforcing current and new laws there is always the ethical question on what is right. The EPA try’s to balance the needs of the business but their main role is protecting the environment from harm. Enforcement Abuse Alive and Well at EPA. James Knott, owner of Riverdale Mills Corporation (RMC), a Northbridge, Massachusetts based manufacturer of plastics- coated wire mesh used in lobster traps around the world. RMC was one of five Massachusetts companies to win the converted Governor’s Award of Outstanding Achievement in Toxic-Used Reduction. (Cohen, ¶ 3). Knott’s ordeal started in 1997 when the EPA received an anonymous tip that RMC was illegally discharging highly toxic waste water into the Northridge sewer system. The EPA agents took some test which came back neutral, neither acidic nor toxic. Although the agents agreed to Knott’s conditions that they be accompanied by an RMC official at all times. The Agents managed to take some samples later that afternoon without any RMC official around. On November 7, the EPA did another visit consisting of 21 EPA law enforcement offices to conduct another PH sampling. Nine months after the EPA raid, a federal grand jury indicted Knott and RMC on two felony counts of violating the Clean Water Act. EPA claimed Knott and RMC had knowingly allowed untreated acidic wastewater into the town’s sewer. If convicted Knott faced a six year prison tern and up to $1.5 million in fines. It turns out that there were criminal activities involved but it was not on the part of Knott and his company. While reviewing the log books of the EPA agents the lawyers for Knott notice something was suspicious. It looked like that some of the measurements in the log books appeared to been altered. Knott hired a retired FBI handwriting expect to review the documents and proved that they were changed to show that RMC were out of range. With each revelation of EPA misconduct, the government’s case against Knott weakens. The governments finally drop the case after it was revealed that three agents were involved with falsifying documents. Knott has since sued the EPA and the three agency employee involved in the case for malicious prosecution and is seeking more than $15 million in damages. There are countless examples of either the EPA making honest mistakes or overzealous employees trying to impress superiors. Then there is the business side trying to cut their cost and making bad decision which would ultimately hurt the environment and the people. We need the EPA to help protect the environment but we also need someone to watch over them to make sure there is a balance of power. Ethically all business should ensure that they protect the environment because the goal is maximize the good for the most people. If we trusted the business to look after the environment many companies would not be able to afford it. The cost would be too much so they would cut corners. If we let the business world regulate themselves their mission statement to make the product for the least amount of money, would influence them to make bad decision. Thinking about the different companies that I have work at during my career in the manufacturing side, there was really no one at those businesses that had the knowledge or skills to come up with policy and procedures to protect the environment. So on one had we need the EPA but we also need a watchdog group to be monitoring their process and procedures that they want to put into place. The office of the Inspector General of the EPA is the official government watchdog of the EPA to ensure they are an independent office within the EPA that helps the Agency protect the environment in an efficient and cost effective manner. They perform audits, evaluations, and investigations of EPA and its contractors to promote economy and efficiency and to prevent and detect fraud, waste and abuse. There is also a hotline service that they have. Twice a year they provide a semi-annual report to Congress to identify significant EPA changes that need to done and proposed corrective actions.